Search - considered
Results 12051 - 12060 of 49144 for considered
T Rev B decision
Jean Thibault v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] CTC 2211, 83 DTC 182
However, I clearly established in my notes (dated May 1st, 1978 entitled “calculs et explications”, and enclosed with above mentioned income tax return) that I considered myself to be self-employed. ... Add to that the fact that whatever teaching methods I used were completely at my own discretion, thus even the fact of actually giving what could be considered to be “lectures”. ...
T Rev B decision
Marinus J Overdyk v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] CTC 2361, 83 DTC 307
With regard to the “wheelchair” point made by the taxpayer, counsel took the view that what was considered by the lay public as a wheelchair, was an arm-propelled wheelchair of the variety normally seen and used, not an office chair. ... However, in this matter, no possible minimum or maximum levels of incapacity need be considered since this appellant, left completely alone without external aid or assistance, would be in bed at all times and that situation can only be attributed to his affliction. ...
T Rev B decision
Minister of National Revenue v. Anita L Stern and Cyril Stern, [1983] CTC 2380, 83 DTC 330
Doctrine Phipson on Evidence, 12th edition; Sopinka & Lederman: Evidence in Civil Cases. 4.03 Analysis 4.03.1 In his argument, counsel for Cyril Stern said that all the letters between counsel for the parties written from 1972 to 1974 must not be considered because of the following rule of law quoted from Sopinka & Lederman, Evidence in Civil Cases: By the general rules of the common law, if there be a contract which has been reduced into writing, verbal evidence is not allowed to be given of what passed between the parties, either before the written instrument was made, or during the time that it was in a state of preparation, so as to add to or subtract from, or in any manner to vary or qualify the written contract... ... Despite the fact that it could have written on a contract: “contract of sale”, if, pursuant to all clauses, it is substantially a contract of rent the words “contract of sale” must not be considered to construe the said contract. ...
TCC
H Loyens v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] CTC 2601, 83 DTC 535
However, at the beginning of the hearing the counsel for both parties informed the Court that they had reached a partial admission and settlement on the following points: 3.01 The appeal is allowed in part for each of the following years, referring to the T7W-C form attached to the reassessments: 1975 The penalty must be levied only on $1,217.65, and not on $1,649.41. 1976 (a) the penalty must be levied only on $1,410.26, and not on $3,022.55; (b) the granting of option of $10,000 must be considered as down payment; and (c) the standby charges of $1,612.29 which were omitted were reduced to $850.89. 1977 The penalty must be levied only on $1,136.90, and not on $2,282.90. From 1975 to 1977 the reassessments are maintained except on the points above. 1978 (a) the penalty must be levied only on $901.90, and not on $7,518.64; (b) the following point is in dispute: should the profits made from the sale of the Harrison farm be considered as a capital gain or not? ...
TCC
Jabs Construction Ltd, Roblyn Holdings Ltd, Jabs Development LTD v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] CTC 2668, 83 DTC 633
Counsel for the respondent argued that: (1) It was not clear whether any other methods of providing financial security for Mr Jabs’ family were considered. (2) Mr Jabs testified that tax consequences were not considered by him although Mr Milan, his accountant, made it clear that the tax implications of whatever steps Mr Jabs took would naturally have been discussed. (3) While Mr Jabs is not a director or officer of Development or Roblyn there is still a marked involvement of him and his staff of Construction in the management and affairs of these two companies. (4) Development was a joint venture development company with which all three companies were connected. (5) Mr Milan had admitted that Eric Jabs had a big part in the decisionmaking process of Development and Roblyn although he was not always consulted. (6) Although Mr Jabs had stated that the intention was to keep Development debt-free this was not what actually happened. (7) Mr Jabs was the directing mind between the three companies. (8) A lease agreement was signed by Mr Pratt on behalf of Construction while the registered owner of the property was Development. (9) From the documents evidence showed that Mr Pratt approached Mr Jabs for his decision on each of the companies which was to be involved in each project. (10) Eric Jabs signed for Development when it applied for a loan to the Royal Bank of Canada. ...
TCC
Mario D’angelo v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] CTC 2685, 83 DTC 627
Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept that the prospect of using the property as the home of the appellant’s family was seriously considered at the date of acquisition. ... The purchase and sale of the one parcel of property — the corner parcel disposed of in the second sale and assessed to tax in the year 1980 in the amount of $7,635 — will be considered as resulting from the acquisition of land for the purpose of constructing a principal residence, and will be on capital account. ...
TCC
Saul Simkin v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] CTC 2721, 83 DTC 651
The Court thinks that 60 per cent of the amount can reasonably be considered for this. The other 40 per cent must be considered as a payment for use or as an advantage to the appellant, and therefore taxable in his income. 5. ...
FCTD
Canadian General Electric Company Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1982] CTC 288, 82 DTC 6232
At first, Ontario Hydro considered undertaking construction of the additional heavy water production in conjunction with its nuclear power plants but AECL decided to assume that responsibility. ... The facts peculiar to this case distinguish it from CIL and from the other authorities considered in C/L. ...
T Rev B decision
Florence Epstein v. Minister of National Revenue, [1982] CTC 2147, 82 DTC 1168, [1982] CTC 2152, [1982] DTC 1164
The respondent was of the view that that mortgage, in the circumstances to be recounted, was not a qualified investment for the trust as it was prohibited from being so considered by Regulation 4900(1)(g) of the Income Tax Regulations (as it was in 1975) in as much as the “mortgagor” was “a person with whom the annuitant does not deal at arm’s length”. ... He continued that, as between those two parties, Black Prince is considered the mortgagor “and it can renew or replace the existing first mortgage”. ...
T Rev B decision
Raoul Engel v. Minister of National Revenue, [1982] CTC 2422, 82 DTC 1403
In my view, the failure of the appellant and Reasoned to amend their agreement is not, when considered in relation to the other evidence, indicative of sham, that is to say, a document not intended by the appellant and Reasoned to govern their relationship. ... I can find in the present case no greater degree of artificiality than existed in the situation considered in Sazio. ...